The Study 
of History 
in Schools 




Rcportof the 
Committee 
-of Five 




Class _J]jA 
Book- 



fi 'S\3 



Copyright l^°_ 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 




THE STUDY OF HISTORY 
IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO 
SAN FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN & CO., Limited 

LONDON • BOMBAY ■ CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd. 

TORONTO 



THE STUDY OF HISTORY 

IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS 



REPORT TO THE 
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION 



BY 

A COMMITTEE OF FIVE 

ANDREW c. Mclaughlin, chairman 

CHARLES H. HASKINS CHARLES W. MANN 
JAMES H. ROBINSON JAMES SULLIVAN 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
1911 

All rights reserved 



/V^' 



Copyright, 191 i, 
By the MACMILLAN COMPANY. 

Set up and electrotyped. Published March, 191 1. 



Nnrfaooli ^ress 

J. 8. Gushing Co. — Berwick & Smith Co. 

Norwood, Mass., U.S.A. 



'■■1 



^y 



©CI. A 28 34 30 '-^- 



^ 



THE STUDY OF HISTORY 
IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS 



THE STUDY OF HISTORY IN 
SECONDARY SCHOOLS 

This Committee was appointed by the Council 
of the American Historical Association at the 
Madison meeting in 1907. As originally consti- 
tuted the Committee included, besides the four 
members signing this Report, Mr. Charles W. Mann, 
Professor of History in Lewis Institute, Chicago. 
Mr. Mann died in the spring of 1909. He had 
been much interested in the work of the Committee 
and as a practical school-man had paid careful 
attention to the problems to be solved. We take 
this opportunity to express our sorrow for the 
loss of a wise and successful teacher and our appre- 
ciation of the value of his counsel. 

I. Relation of this Committee to the 
Committee of Seven 

Although two of the members of this Committee 
were also members of the Committee of Seven, we 
make no pretence of representing the earlier Com- 
mittee or of attempting to give an authoritative 



2 The Former Committee 

interpretation of its Report. We have made a 
new study of the conditions in the schools, and have 
entered once again into a careful consideration of 
the history curriculum. The Report of the Com- 
mittee of Seven, however, has necessarily been our 
starting-point; we were appointed to determine 
what modifications, if any, were needed in the 
recommendations of the earlier Committee. This 
task could not be performed without interpreting 
the Report; and in some instances interpretation 
or emphasis appeared more desirable than any 
very distinct modification. In the following pages, 
therefore, we present, not only our own recom- 
mendations for change, but also what appears to 
us to be the proper or the most helpful and useful 
construction of the work of the Committee of Seven. 

11. The Report of the Committee of 
Seven 

In 1899, when the Committee of Seven published 
its Report, the schools were ready for decided 
change in the curriculum and for advance in meth- 
ods. The Report appears to have judged the gen- 
eral situation correctly, and, in the main, to have 
recommended steps that the schools were prepared 
to take. From one side of the continent to the 
other courses were fashioned with deference to 



Uniformity 3 

its recommendations. The Report of the Com- 
mittee affected not merely the curriculum but 
also the method and even the aims of history teach- 
ing, and its natural result was also to bring about, 
or help to bring about, the estabhshment of sub- 
stantially similar curricula in a large portion of the 
schools the country over. In general this move- 
ment appears to us to have been wise and admirable. 
The approximate uniformity in the history curricula 
of the schools is in itself so desirable that the con- 
dition ought not to be disturbed except for strong 
reasons or where there is good ground for expecta- 
tion that a large percentage of the schools can easily 
and willingly accommodate themselves to the 
change. Not that absolute conformity to a fixed 
regime is in all cases wise ; local conditions or pe- 
culiar circumstances may justly have more influence 
on the shaping of a curriculum than any theory 
of adjustment or of correlation of studies. But 
there is such a thing as a logically developed series 
of history courses, and there are general principles 
that are largely appKcable to the great majority 
of schools; such principles may in special cases 
need modification; but they need not be en- 
tirely ignored. It is probably unnecessary to prove 
to the practical teacher the convenience of sub- 
stantially similar courses in the high schools, 
especially if college entrance requirements are, 



4 Present Situation 

or can be brought to be, in accord with what the 
schools are prepared to furnish. 

In light of all these facts we have felt it pecul- 
iarly advisable to look into present conditions 
carefully and to recommend only such change as 
appeared indubitably advantageous and clearly 
in the line of progress. Fortunately no very rad- 
ical alteration in the curriculum appears necessary.^ 

III. The Present Situation 

The present Committee was appointed by the 
American Historical Association as the result of 
a petition from the Headmasters' Association pro- 
posing that certain changes be made in the Report 
of the Committee of Seven. The petition asked 
for a modification in the extent of the field of 
ancient history and for a reduction of what was 
thought to be an over-emphasis upon the desira- 

1 The Committee of Seven recommended four fields of history, 
each normally a year's work, to be taken in the following order : — 

1. Ancient History, with special reference to Greek and Roman 
history, but including also a short introductory study of the more 
ancient nations. This period should also embrace the early 
Middle Ages, and should close with the establishment of the Holy 
Roman Empire (800) or with the death of Charlemagne (814) 
or with the Treaty of Verdun (843). 

2. Mediaeval and Modern European History, from the close 
of the first period to the present time. 

3. EngUsh History. 

4. American History and Civil Government. 



Present Course 5 

bility of cultivating the reasoning faculty rather 
than ''mere memory " by historical study. Before 
taking action on these matters, it appeared to us 
necessary to study the whole subject anew, to 
gather information concerning the existing sit- 
uation in the schools, and to make recommendations 
that the general survey of the field appeared to 
justify. We sent circulars of inquiry to history 
teachers in all sections of the country and obtained 
helpful information from the answers to these 
inquiries. We gained further knowledge from 
discussions in teachers' meetings and associations. 
The general subject was discussed in the American 
Historical Association, in the New England History 
Teachers' Association, in the North Central History 
Teachers' Association, in the Association of History 
Teachers of the Middle States and Maryland, in a 
convention of the History Teachers of CaHfornia, 
and in other gatherings as well. Some of the asso- 
ciations have made special and detailed study of 
the problems we have had to consider, and the 
pubhshed reports of these associations have been 
serviceable in enabling us to appreciate the prevail- 
ing sentiment on critical questions and to estimate 
differences of opinion and judgment. The recom- 
mendations in the following pages, therefore, are 
based on information gained from a variety of 
sources. 



6 Present Situation 

To give in detail or in synoptical form all the in- 
formation gathered from the replies to the ques- 
tions in the Committee's circular appears to be 
unnecessary; but it may be well to give here a 
brief survey of the general situation as disclosed by 
these replies and by the debates and reports to 
which we have just referred. 

(i) Ten years ago there were some sharp criti- 
cisms of the Committee of Seven's Report because 
it ventured to mark out a course in history extend- 
ing over four years. But even then an occasional 
school was offering a similar amount of work, and 
since that time the development of the school cur- 
riculum has shown that four years of work can be 
quite generally offered. For example, out of 93 
schools which, in reply to our inquiry, describe 
or name their history courses, 7 offer five years of 
work, 38 offer four years, 2 offer three and a half 
years, 42 offer three years, and 4 offer two years. 
It is thus apparent that four years of work is a 
possible amount. Although a sound three-year 
course may be recommended to schools desiring 
to do only three years' work, it is equally desirable 
to prepare a four-year scheme for schools that can 
furnish the longer schedule. This Committee 
believes, as did the Committee of Seven, that four 
years are needed and should be offered where 
conditions permit 



Ancient History 7 

(2) It is not so easy as it might at first appear 
to ascertain just how far the school curricula have 
been shaped in accordance with the Report of the 
Committee of Seven.^ But it is not necessary to 
know by exact measurement the influence of the 
Report ; it is sufficient to know that, whether the 
Report has been consciously followed or not, school 
programmes are now very commonly, though by 
no means universally, in accord with its recommen- 
dations. Moreover, even when there are varia- 
tions in other particulars, many schools, we judge 
the vast majority, have abandoned the attempt 
to cover general history in a single year and have 
adopted the plan of offering blocks or periods of 
history. This alone constitutes an important ap- 
proach to the scheme of the Committee of Seven. 

(3) It is not possible to determine from the repKes 
to our circular alone just what is the opinion of 
teachers concerning the field of ancient history. 
The conditions and difficulties are not the same 
in all sections of the country, probably. The 

1 For example, in answer to the question, "How far has this 
course [of yours] been drawn up or shaped in accordance with 
the recommendations of the Committee of Seven?" one school 
says, "Not at all"; but the course given is, nevertheless: — 

First year — Ancient History to 800 a.d. 

Second year — 800 to the present time. 

Third year — English History. 

Fourth year — American History and Civics. 



8 Present Situation 

teacher in the East, preparing pupils for college 
examinations in ancient history, works under con- 
ditions differing in some particulars from those in 
which the Western teacher is placed; to omit 
portions of a text, to emphasize, to enlarge or to 
abbreviate as inclination suggests or as need of 
time demands, is a more serious operation for the 
teacher of history fitting pupils for examinations 
than it is to one whose pupils enter college on cer- 
tificates stating that they have covered the field 
required. The difficulty in the Eastern schools is 
not so much in the extent of the field to be covered 
as in the need of covering it all with a layer of equal 
and even thickness lest the unwary pupil be caught 
by an unexpected question of the examiner. Incon- 
clusive as the replies to our circulars are, the infor- 
mation they give is not seriously at variance with 
that reached by other methods of inquiry; some 
of them contain the expected complaint, but the 
statistics appear to point to the conclusion that 
the majority of teachers are not discontented with 
the length of the field. 

Of 107 schools giving adequate answers to the 
inquiries concerning the length of the period, 
77 appear to cover Oriental history and bring the 
study of ancient history down to 800 A.D., or try 
to do so; 9 stop at 476 a.d.; and 7 at some point 
in the fourth century. A number complain that 



Government and History 9 

the field is too long, a few that the freshmen are 
too immature, and several that the text-books are 
unsatisfactory. 

(4) On the subject of mediaeval and modern 
history there are differences of opinion and practice. 
Amid all this diversity, however, one thing is quite 
apparent. Many schools — we are inchned to 
believe a distinct majority — are desirous of empha- 
sizing modern history. Certainly the tendency 
is too strong to be ignored. Here again one cannot 
form one's opinion solely from the replies to our 
circulars; but as usual they bear out the conclu- 
sions one gains from other sources. Of the schools 
whose replies have been compiled, 7 do not offer 
work in the field of mediaeval or modern history; 
14 do not state the limits of the field as they actually 
teach it ; 67 aim to come down to the present day ; 
II do not attempt to do this; 64 schools are in 
favor of placing more emphasis on the later portion ; 
7 do not think such emphasis practicable ; 26 give 
no opinion. Some 13 schools are in favor of a 
special course in modern history; and 28 wish to 
gain time for the study of modern history by short- 
ening the time given to mediaeval history. 

(5) Concerning the relation between United 
States history and civil government, and concern- 
ing the extent to which government can be taught 
in direct connection with history, there are also 



10 Present Situation 

marked differences of opinion. There is evident 
difficulty to ascertain from the repHes in the cir- 
cular just what the teachers desire. There are 
many possible grades between teaching govern- 
ment and history in two totally detached courses, 
on the one hand, and teaching them in one com- 
bined course, on the other ; moreover, a combined 
course may appear the best if the time at disposal 
is short, and two interrelated and interdependent 
courses may appear desirable where more time is 
available. The questions in the circular were as 
follows : " To what extent does your study of Amer- 
ican history include civil government ? Does your 
experience indicate that civil government can best 
be taught as a part of the work in American his- 
tory ?" The following are typical answers : — 

*'Our study of American history does include civil 
government, and our teachers of American history 
are emphatic in the opinion that for a secondary 
school the only feasible way in which to teach civil 
government is in connection with the American 
history. They heartily indorse the views of the 
Committee of Seven upon that point." 

"About one-fifth civil government with a text- 
book. I have taught it in each way and prefer 
to make it a part of the work in American history. '^ 

''Our study of American history includes the 
study of political science. About two-fifths of the 



Government and History ii 

time is given up to this. Experience has indicated 
that it can best be taught in connection with the 
work in American history. The principal objection 
that we find to this plan is that it reduces the time 
for history." 

"It should be taught in both ways — historically, 
as a part of history; systematically and logically, 
as a separate course." 

"Without doubt civics can of itself best be taught 
— I say from experience — separately. In five 
months devoted to civics my class would have more 
knowledge of government than they have now, — 
but not so much of United States history." 

"I am rather inclined to the view that an ade- 
quate course in civics may best be given after the 
student has had the history course." ^ 

The analysis appears to show that 41 schools 
favor teaching the two subjects together in a course 
that may be called American history and civil 

1 An experienced teacher, when asked how civil government 
was taught, repHed : "In connection with American history." 
"Do you set aside so many hours a week or a definite number of 
weeks in the year for government?" "No." "How does the 
plan work?" "Splendidly." "Do you use a text-book in 
government?" "Certainly." "Do you believe this plan of 
teaching the two together to be the best?" "That depends on 
the teacher." Possibly we have here the real situation ; some 
teachers can without difficulty manage the system, others cannot. 
But schools should give opportunity to the teacher to teach in 
the way in which he finds he can produce best results. 



12 Present Situation 

government; 32 prefer separate courses; 23 partly 
follow the plan of teaching the two together ; others 
are doubtful. 

Such replies and such information are, as we have 
said, inconclusive. But in light of all the facts 
we can gather we are justified, probably, in saying 
that there is an undoubted desire on the part oi\ 
many teachers to have the opportunity to give a 
separate course in government, especially for the 
purpose of dwelling on certain phases of actual 
politics and government that cannot be readily y 
and adequately discussed in connection with Ameri/ 
can history. The need is not so much for a radical 
revision of method as for sufficient time to do both 
subjects profitably. 

(6) On the subject of memorizing and the attempt 
to get generalized knowledge, the circular asked 
the following question : ''Does it seem to you that 
the Committee [of Seven] has laid undue stress upon 
comprehensive and generalized knowledge and led to 
the undue neglect of matters specific and detailed ? " 
The answers are clearly in favor of the Report; 
II think that the Committee does lay too much 
stress on comprehensive and generalized knowledge ; 
66 do not think so ; 19 are non-committal.^ 

1 In a series of recommendations addressed to the Committee 
of Five by the New England Teachers' Association appears the 
following paragraph: "In general the critics of the recommen- 



The Teacher 13 

(7) The circular contained an inquiry upon school 
equipment for teaching history. Probably the 
schools receiving the circular were, on the whole, 
above the average in advantages and in general 
strength. However this may be, there is evidence 
that there is a wide use of illustrative material, an 
earnest desire to use as much as can profitably 
be used, and a sense of the value of sources as illus- 
trative material. 

IV. The Teacher and the Material for 
his Use 

The most important factor in the schoolroom 
is not the curriculum, the text, or even the method 
but the teacher. The schools are taking history 
more seriously than they did ten years ago, and 
superintendents and school trustees are beginning 
to see how difficult it is to get history taught as it 
should be taught. Of course it is a comparatively 
easy task to follow the winding way of a thoughtless 
pupil over the pages of a well-smoothed text-book. 

dation of the Committee of Seven complain of the length of the 
field covered, and to it attribute the apparent failure of the teacher 
of history to impress upon the student the value of facts, and do 
not feel that such a failure is due to the emphasis placed by the 
Report upon the value of generalized knowledge, but rather be- 
lieve it has been of especial value in leading our teachers of history 
to develop power in our pupils." 



14 Teacher and Material 

It is not difficult for a teacher to watch his charges 
narrowly as they move along from one rigid para- 
graph to the next. If the pupils ask no questions, 
the teacher is in no imminent danger of telling un- 
truths. But if history is to be a study of actual 
educational value and culture, if the boy and girl 
are to be given insight into social life, some real 
sense of time and movement, and, above all, inter- 
est, vital interest, in books and facts, the teacher 
must have character, enthusiasm, and knowledge. 
Because we believe so profoundly in the helpfulness 
of historical study, the necessity of bringing the 
pupils to see the world about them as the product 
of past ages, the value of learning to handle books 
and to think and speak clearly, — not alone of quan- 
tities in algebra or of facts in physics, but of human 
doings, — we;wish here distinctly to state our belief 
that all mictions of curriculum are comparatively 
insignifi^jant. The schools have a right to demand 
teachers that are prepared to teach history and have 
the ability and the spirit to teach it right. Public 
schools, supported by taxation, that are content 
with the old idea that anybody can teach history, 
that anybody can trace the line of life through the 
past and give his pupils the spark of interest and 
the fire of useful knowledge, have, in our opinion, 
a distorted conception of their responsibility. The 
great demand of the day is for teachers that have 



School Equipment 15 

themselves inhaled the breath of enthusiasm, and 
that have knowledge, skill, and force. 
^ No one knows better than the members of the 
Committee how hard it is to have adequate knowl- 
edge and to combine with knowledge an unfailing 
supply of interest and courage. We know too that 
a great deal of good work is being done. But the 
fact remains that there is a need for more good 
teachers ; the schools need far better equipment ; 
and the teachers need more time to prepare their les- 
sons, to seek out illustrative material, and to direct 
the study of their pupils. Excellent as are the 
texts that have appeared in recent years, they cannot 
take the place of teachers well trained in history ; 
the poorly equipped teacher may nulHfy the re- 
sults to be derived from the best texts. 
^Most schools are badly in need of equipment for 
doing their work right. Teachers of history, when 
contrasted with the teachers of science, have been 
modest in their requests. In most schools the pro- 
vision for sound and substantial work in history 
is quite inadequate. Good wall maps, large, framed 
photographs of historical remains and historical 
places, a good working general library, a small 
classroom hbrary with dupHcate copies of the 
most important works, lantern sHdes, which can 
if necessary be shown with an inexpensive and 
portable lantern, cheap pictures and reprints 



i6 Four Years' Course 

of interesting sources for illustration and for special 
study, — these are necessities in a school that ex- 
pects the best results. The history teacher is as 
much entitled to helpful apparatus as the science 
teacher is to the expensive appliances of his labora- 
tory. In history, as in science, pupils must learn 
facts, and learn also to do things and see things for 
themselves ; but if they are to get the best training, 
if they are to study history to the best advantage, 
they must have the tools with which to work and 
the opportunity to use the tools they have. A 
room devoted to history, a room well stocked with 
such materials as pupils can use and enjoy, will 
some day, and we hope soon, be considered as in- 
dispensable as the laboratory in the well-equipped 
school. 

V. The Four-year Course and the Three- 
year Course 

Ten or eleven years ago when the Committee of 
Seven was at work, circulars were widely distrib- 
uted and the returns carefully examined. At 
that time one-half of the schools answering the cir- 
culars reported a course in general history; i.e. 
they sought to cover the field of universal history in 
six months or a year. The Committee of Seven 
in its Report strongly combated the idea that 



General History 17 

pupils could profitably be carried over the whole 
field in a single year. Earnestly advocating the 
advisability of studying the whole period where 
possible, the Report recommended that four years 
be devoted to the subject and the whole field be 
divided into blocks or periods, each to be recognized 
as a unit for college entrance. Each block appeared 
to be brief enough to give ample opportunity for 
real history work, for a study of men and of con- 
crete facts. 

As we have shown in considering the rephes to 
our circulars and in an attempt to state briefly 
what the general situation is, there has been a 
tendency to accept these recommendations. Blocks 
or periods of history not dissimilar to those marked 
out by the Committee of Seven are commonly used. 
We are at the present time, however, occasionally 
confronted with complaints and desires that are of 
exactly opposite character. Occasionally a teacher, 
more frequently, we believe, a superintendent not 
actually engaged in history teaching, advocates 
the retention or the reestablishment of the short 
course in general history; on the other hand, one 
sometimes hears the declaration that it is impos- 
sible to cover the period of the world's history in 
four years. The first complaint arises from a 
sense of the desirability of a comprehensive view 
of the whole field ; the other, from an appreciation 



1 8 Four Years' Course 

of the difficulty of teaching well and wisely when the 
field is broad and long. 

It is not our intention to discuss anew the inad- 
visabiHty of adopting the short course in general 
history ; that matter is fully and, we beheve, con- 
vincingly treated in the Report of the Committee 
of Seven. It is conceivable that some teachers, 
under advantageous conditions, with some students, 
may after a fashion cover the whole course of the 
world's history in a single year ; but it appears to 
us as a general thing altogether unwise to make the 
attempt. Such a conclusion appears unavoidable 
for many reasons, but chiefly for the reason that 
there are many things to be gained from historical 
study besides a comprehensive view and equally 
proportioned knowledge ; and even if such a view 
and such knowledge could be secured by the study 
of general history in a single year, perspective and 
proportion would be acquired at the expense of 
what is much more valuable — training and insight 
and comprehension. 

That the fields marked out by the Committee of 
Seven are too extensive for four years' study is, it 
appears, the behef of some teachers. At least we 
find one experienced and learned college teacher 
saying that the Committee of Seven "unintention- 
ally perpetrated a pleasantry on the teaching 
world." This pleasantry is said to consist in the 



Omission and Emphasis 19 

declaration that it is possible to cover the entire 
range of history from early Grecian times to the 
present day in four years. As a matter of fact the 
pleasantry might more justly be considered as an 
effort to persuade schools to give up the attempt 
to accomplish this task in a single year. Teachers 
were advised by the Report to accept the four- 
period system, and, if only three years were avail- 
able, either to omit one of the periods entirely or to 
combine two of them into one. Objections to the 
plan of covering general history in four years are 
probably indications of progress, or, at all events, 
of a desire to give thorough work, to require or 
induce extensive reading, and to allow the free use 
of illustrative material. But whether these objec- 
tions are signs of progress or not, they appear to be 
ill-founded. More than four years cannot be used 
in the great majority of schools, and when so 
much time is devoted to history it is quite within 
the range of sense and possibihty to cover general 
history and to teach the subject well. 

The trouble, if there be any, hes in the fact that 
teachers complaining of the inadequacy of a four 
years' course in general history, or asserting that 
the blocks or periods marked out by the Committee 
of Seven are too long and cumbersome, try, or think 
they are expected to try, to cover the whole range 
of history with a layer of information of uniform 



20 Four Years' Course 

thickness. They do not understand that in going 
over a field they can, by wise omissions and clever 
condensations, here and there, gain the time and the 
chance to plough deeper in some portions than in 
others. No one can seriously propose that, in four 
years, pupils be taught everything that can be 
learned; and in our opinion stress to-day comes 
largely from text-books that are loaded with unnec- 
essary facts, from this feehng that omission and 
condensation are culpable, and perhaps, too, from 
such college entrance examinations as make it 
necessary to teach all that a text contains. When 
a school offers its pupils the opportunities of a 
four years' history course, it does not appear neces- 
sary to omit treatment of any great period in the 
world's history in order to get substantial results. 
But even with such a course the teacher must use 
discrimination, be ready to omit unnecessary and 
unedifying details, pass over unappetizing and 
unnourishing narrative, and emphasize and illus- 
trate the portions of the field that are specially 
worthy of study and thought. This process of 
omission and condensation, of emphasis and clari- 
fication, of dwelhng with interest and sympathy 
on what most deserves interest and sympathy, is the 
process which tries the teacher's soul, but it is the 
essential element of good teaching — if good teach- 
ing can justly be called a matter of method at all. 



Treatment 21 

Unfortunately the schools do not by any means 
universally offer four years of history. There are 
many schools that offer but three years, and with 
this allotment of time many teachers must be con- 
tent. If only three years are available, how shall 
they be used? That is a question much more 
troublesome than the proper distribution of studies 
under the four-year scheme. There appears to 
be positively no agreement concerning what should 
be given or what omitted, although in general, 
probably, the problem is solved by the omission 
of a whole period or section of history, such as 
ancient or Enghsh, rather than by any system of 
condensation or combination. Of course the plan 
of merely omitting all consideration of some one 
block is the simplest, and in many instances it must 
be the wisest plan, for to attempt condensation or 
the rapid survey of a wide period cannot be profit- 
able if the teacher is inexperienced or if he has not 
the opportunity to make thorough and thoughtful 
preparation. This is especially true because texts 
are not commonly arranged for the three years' 
scheme. 

We are not ready, however, to assert that the 
course of the world's history can in no case be cov- 
ered intelligently and effectively in three years, and 
that the only thing to do is to drop bodily out of 
sight some great and important section. The ex- 



22 Three Years' Course 

perienced teacher may find it quite possible to 
trace the main development and to gather the 
main lessons, and to accomphsh the task without 
studying mere mechanical outlines on the one hand 
or struggling with philosophic generalizations on 
the other. This task must be performed by the 
wisest and most discriminating selection of the im- 
portant and by the skilful subordination of the un- 
essential; and it must be performed, too, without 
losing sight of the fact that the pupil must be so 
taught that he touches particulars. The second- 
ary pupil must deal with real facts and with real 
men, with institutions as men worked in them 
and with them; he must have time to think and 
read as well as to learn. We must not forget that 
history merits a place in the curriculum because 
of its distinctly educational value ; by it the pupil 
learns how the toil and labor of the past gener- 
ations made the present; he learns to read and 
think of social problems. Such ends are not 
attained by any unreal and impersonal treatment 
of institutions and processes, or by the memoriz- 
ing of chronological outlines. 

It would be inappropriate to attempt here any 
ample illustration of the process of condensation 
and ehmination that might be suitable for a three 
years' course. That process can be accomplished 
only by the skilful text-writer or by the wise teacher 



Treatment 23 

in the classroom. We do suggest, however, that if 
it seems wise to omit any detailed study of ancient 
history and to give the three years substantially to 
the other three blocks, the teacher, while omitting 
all detail, may still attempt to give his pupils 
some idea of the growth of the ancient nations, and 
some idea of their achievements and their qualities. 
Hurried and unsatisfactory as such treatment 
must be, it need not be profitless; the pupil need 
not enter upon the study of mediaeval history with 
no appreciation of antiquity. The essentials of 
Greek civilization can be pointed out with con- 
siderable distinctness; the pupil can learn with 
some clearness the main steps by which Rome 
encircled the Mediterranean and established her 
far-reaching dominion ; he can get some knowledge 
of the most salient facts in Roman organization 
and government. For such study time must be 
gained by elimination and condensation, chiefly 
in the treatment of the thousand years of English 
and Continental history that come before the age 
of discovery. In many cases, probably, the teacher 
will have to give this introductory survey by oral 
instruction. 

If, in a three years' course, ancient history be 
given as usual in the four-year curriculum, con- 
densation and elimination must of course be at- 
tempted in other fields. The mediaeval field must 



24 Ancient Flistory 

then be treated as only introductory to the later 
time, and only those facts can be dwelt upon that 
conspicuously aid in a comprehension of the modern 
era. If the second year's work is general Euro- 
pean history, the teacher will seek to give a knowl- 
edge of the most striking facts in the development 
of England. If European history is omitted, 
English history should be so taught as to bring 
out the chief phases of the general European en- 
vironment. The omission of American history 
does not seem in any case to be advisable, and 
probably in no three-year schedule can the time 
allotted to it be materially shortened — its lessons 
are too immediate, its content is too valuable. 
And yet even here it may be quite possible to teach 
certain portions of colonial history in connection 
with English history, and thus to bring out the 
great fact of England's expansion, as well as some 
of the essentials of her growth. 

VI. Ancient History 

The Committee of Seven recommended that an- 
cient history should be taken as one field of study. 
The schools were advised, instead of giving sepa- 
rate and detached courses in Greek and Roman 
history, to give a single course covering the history 
of both peoples. The Committee believed that 



Oriental Background 25 

the time had come when ancient history might 
" be studied independently as an interesting, in- 
structive, and valuable part of the history of the 
human race," and not merely as a sort of appendix 
to the languages of Greece and Rome. There ap- 
peared to be abundant reason for treating the field 
as one field and not dividing it into two, as if the 
nations of antiquity lived and walked in isolated 
grandeur, and as if Greek history ended before 
Rome began. There appeared then, and there 
appears now, every reason for studying the history 
of the ancient world as one subject in schools, and 
the whole tendency of scholarly investigation is in 
the same direction. On this point, fortunately, 
there appears to be no material difference of opinion 
among competent teachers of history. 

As a means of securing this broader study of 
ancient history and placing Greek and Roman 
history in its proper setting, the Committee of 
Seven advocated a brief introductory survey of 
Oriental history, in order that students should not 
be dropped into Greek history without appreciation 
of the fact that thousands of years of recorded 
history had already passed over the world and made 
important contributions to its civilization. This 
survey was urged "as an indispensable background 
for the study of the classical peoples," but it has 
not always been understood that it should be given 



26 Ancient History- 

only as a background, and ought in no case to in- 
volve a memorizing of dynasties or even a continu- 
ous narration. What such a course should contain 
is excellently stated b}^ the Committee of Seven, 
and the present Committee sees no reason for 
modifying that recommendation : ''It should aim to 
give {a) an idea of the remoteness of these Oriental 
beginnings, of the length and reach of recorded 
history; {h) a definite knowledge of the names, 
location, and chronological succession of the early 
Oriental nations ; (<;) the distinguishing features 
of their civilizations, as concretely as possible ; {d) 
the recognizable lines of their influence on later 
times." The statement of the Committee of 
Seven that this survey should not exceed one- 
eighth of the entire time devoted to ancient history 
has sometimes been interpreted as meaning that 
one-eighth of a year is a minimum, whereas in 
our opinion it should occupy distinctly less than 
that amount of time. Fortunately the treatment of 
this field in the text-books has greatly improved 
since the Report of the Committee of Seven was 
written, and the better texts now offer a wise 
guidance in the selection and emphasis of facts 
concerning the Oriental period. 

As a further means of unifying ancient history 
and breaking down the traditional isolation of 
Greece and Rome, the Committee of Seven recom- 



Constitutional History 27 

mended emphasis upon the Hellenistic period, as 
the age when Greek civilization spread over the 
East and when Greece and Rome were drawn 
together, and upon the Roman Empire as the 
culmination of ancient history and the starting- 
point of later development. These recommen- 
dations in themselves seem to have met with 
little criticism, but there has been a widespread 
complaint that they cannot be carried out in 
schools in the time available for the study of ancient 
history. The cup of Greek and Roman history 
was already full, and nothing could be added. In 
one sense the kernel of this objection is perfectly 
sound ; what is needed is not so much more time 
for this course, as a radical revision of its subject- 
matter in the light of the progress of historical 
investigation and the results of classroom experi- 
ence. The content of the course is still too largely 
shaped by the tradition which made it the hand- 
maid to the study of certain classical authors and 
filled it with military and constitutional detail 
without regard to larger historical perspective; 
and too little attention has been paid to selecting 
and dwelling only on such facts as can be clearly 
apprehended by pupils at the age when the subject 
is usually studied. Thus for those who have as 
yet scarcely any acquaintance with their own gov- 
ernment, the attempt is made to teach the early 



28 Ancient History 

constitutional development of Athens and Rome, 
subjects which are obscure and diffcult even for 
maturer students and, at least in the case of Rome, 
are usually presented in accordance with outgrown 
views of historical study. We can see no useful 
purpose that is served at this stage by comparing 
the Solonian and Draconian legislation or learning 
the details of the Valerio-Horatian laws. 

Young pupils entering upon a new and compli- 
cated field of study should commonly be taught 
something of the statics of government before its 
dynamics receive much attention; the workings of a 
poKtical system at a given period should precede 
the tracing of constitutional development. In 
the study of Athenian history in the secondary 
school, the early development should be disregarded 
and effort concentrated upon the actual workings 
of Athenian democracy in the Periclean age. Like- 
wise in Roman history no attempt should be made 
to reconstruct the institutions of the regal period 
or the supposed history of the struggle between 
the orders. The teacher will do well if he leaves 
a clear understanding of the government of the 
republic in the period of the Punic wars, the char- 
acter of the provincial system, the constitutional 
issues of the later republic, the changes introduced 
by Augustus, and the nature of the later empire. 
Throughout the study of ancient history much 



The Limits 29 

better results would be secured by fuller and more 
descriptive study of significant epochs, at the 
expense of much chronological narration once 
deemed important. Historically as well as ped- 
agogically, for example, it would be far better to 
begin the stud}^ of Roman history where our actual 
knowledge begins, at the close of the fourth century 
B.C., and give a brief account of the Romans, their 
life and government and how they conquered Italy, 
leaving for more advanced study the difficult prob- 
lems of the reconstruction of early Roman history 
from the legends and the guesses of the later 
Romans. By beginning at this point the natural 
connection with Greek history is made in the war 
with Pyrrhus, and the struggle with Carthage be- 
comes, what it should be, a piece of Mediterranean 
rather than of local ItaKan history. If it is 
thought desirable to give in the secondary school 
some of the legends of early Rome, they can be in- 
troduced here as illustrating the character and ideals 
of the Romans and their beliefs concerning Rome's 
past. 

The suggestion of the Committee of Seven 
which has attracted the most attention is the one 
advising the continuation of ancient history down 
to 800 A.D. The reasons for this recommendation 
are apparently these : (i) such an arrangement 
shortens the period that follows; the great field 



30 Ancient History 

of mediaeval and modern history is made more 
manageable ; (2) to break off the history of Rome 
abruptly at 476 or at any previous time is to leave 
the old impression that Rome actually fell and 
disappeared, while one of the most important facts 
in history is the continuing influence of the eternal 
city; (3) ''to break off with the year 476 is to 
leave the pupil in a world of confusion — the 
invasions only begun, the church not fully organ- 
ized, the empire not fully, ' fallen,' " ; (4) in the light 
of the way in which Roman history was not in- 
frequently taught, — as if with the daggers of 
Cassius and Brutus, or at best with the burial of 
Augustus or the unsaintly Tiberius, the greatness 
of Rome were gone, — it is especially desirable that 
connection be made between the history of Rome 
and the beginning of the Middle Ages, and that the 
tale should not be stopped without pointing to the 
appearance on the western horizon of states and 
systems which, in some measure, relying on the 
traditions of Roman order and the inheritance of 
her law, were to form the foundation not only of 
mediaeval but of modern Europe. 

These reasonings appear to us on the whole sound, 
and the great majority of schools seem to have 
accommodated themselves to this plan of prolonging 
the study of ancient history into the earlier Middle 
Ages. While, however, we find ourselves in accord 



The Limits 31 

with the Committee of Seven on this much-debated 
point, we believe that the matter requires further 
and more specific explanation. Many school- 
masters and examiners have interpreted this rec- 
ommendation as demanding as intensive a study 
of the period from Constantine to Charlemagne as 
is commonly given to the later republic and the 
early empire, and this misconception has naturally 
led to a protest against the possibility of crowding 
such an amount of additional matter into a year 
already full. The difficulty has been rendered 
acute in many schools through the practice of the 
College Entrance Examination Board of setting 
questions on the later period which could be an- 
swered only as the result of somewhat detailed 
study. Such an interpretation of the Committee's 
recommendation seems to us not only out of har- 
mony with the spirit of its Report, but contrary to 
sound historical teaching, and we desire to set forth 
more fully our views on this subject. 

No period of history can properly be taught 
without some reference to what precedes and what 
follows; and no course on ancient history, however 
elementary, ought to omit some reference to the 
Middle Ages which came after, as well as to the 
Oriental nations which went before. If the Roman 
empire is in any sense the "great central fact in the 
history of nations," the pupil must be led to under- 



32 Ancient History 

stand its central position by seeing, not only its 
origin, but its influence on later times. He must 
be shown that Rome did not ''fall" in any one 
year, but that by a process of change the ancient 
world gradually disappeared and a new mediaeval 
world took its place. To stop the study of ancient 
history in i8o or 395 or 476 is inevitably to give the 
impression that ancient history ends at this point 
and in some way stands apart from the subsequent 
history of the world. There is, on the other hand, 
nothing peculiarly sacred in the year 800. It is 
simply a convenient stopping place from which the 
student can look back and see by contrasting the 
empire of Charlemagne with that of Augustus 
something of the process by which the ancient world 
was transformed into the mediaeval. Some teachers 
may perhaps succeed in accomplishing the same 
end by stopping with the death of Justinian; others, 
especially where no specific study of mediaeval 
history is to follow, may wish to carry their classes 
still farther in the effort to establish a connection 
between ancient and modern times. The main 
point is that these transitional centuries should be 
used to round out the view of ancient history and 
show its relations to modern. 

Similarly in the study of mediaeval history it will 
be necessary to treat this same period, but from a 
different point of view, that of the origins of mediae- 



Subjects 33 

val civilization. To chop European history in two 
at the year 800 is not much better than to chop 
it in two at 476, for the result is to violate historical 
continuity and give a factitious importance to a date 
which should serve merely as an historical con- 
venience. 

The period between Constantine and Charle- 
magne, being neither wholly ancient nor wholly 
m-ediaeval, should accordingly be studied both in 
the course on ancient history and in that on 
mediaeval and modern history, but it should be ap- 
proached in each case from a different point of view. 
In the course on ancient history the emphasis should 
be put upon the Roman elements. In studying the 
later empire attention should be given to those 
elements which remained rather than to those 
which perished, — to the power and influence of 
the emperor as determining the persistence of 
the imperial ideal; to the Roman law; to the 
Latin language; and to the local life of the civitas 
and the villa. Christianity should be studied 
particularly in its relations to Rome as seen in its 
establishment as a state religion, its organization 
as modelled on the local organization of the 
empire, with the bishop as the centre of the reli- 
gious life of the civitas, and its absorption of the 
Roman culture which it was to transmit to the 
Middle Ages. The Germanic invasions should 



34 Ancient History 

likewise be taken up primarily in relation to the 
overthrow of the Roman empire; no attempt 
should be made to follow the migrations in detail, 
but the history of a single people, such as the Visi- 
goths, should be traced, and the growth and extent 
of the Frankish empire should be made clear as a 
basis for a description of conditions of western 
Europe under Charlemagne. Attention should 
carefully be called to the continuation of the empire 
in the East and to the part of the Greek empire in 
perpetuating Roman law and in civilizing eastern 
Europe, but its narrative history should not be 
carried beyond the time of Justinian. Such a 
tapering-off of Roman history cannot fail to leave 
a clear impression of the character and the abiding 
importance of ancient civilization. 

All such topics should of course be treated as 
simply and concretely as possible, and should 
require but a small number of exercises at the close 
of the year; and suitable questions upon these 
should find a place in examination papers on ancient 
history. Candidates might, for example, be asked 
to describe city life in the Roman empire; to show 
how Christianity was made the state religion; to 
give a brief account of the history of the Visigoths; 
to show how the eastern and western empires be- 
came separated ; to explain what the Corpus Juris 
Civilis is and mention important states in which 



Treatment 35 

its influence is still felt ; to name the countries 
which speak a language derived from the Latin; 
to trace the boundaries of Justinian's or Charle- 
magne's empire as compared with that of Augustus'. 
On the other hand, such subjects as the rise and 
spread of Mohammedanism, the specific institutions 
of the Germans (such as the comitatus or the ordeal), 
monasticism, and the history of the Papacy, while 
they fall chronologically in the period before 800, 
are so essentially a part of medieval history that no 
examiner or board of examiners should put ques- 
tions upon them in a paper on ancient history. 
Topics such as these, whose culminating interest is 
reached in mediseval times, are suitable material 
for questions in examinations in mediaeval and 
modern history. 

One other matter needs consideration here. 
Some teachers declare that pupils of the first year 
are too immature for ancient history. If, however, 
a four years' course is to be given, what shall be 
done ? Are they not in the same way unprepared 
for any field of history ? Should the chronological 
order advised by the Committee of Seven be aban- 
doned and some other field given the first year? 
Now the only other field that one would think of is 
probably American history, and, as the Report 
points out, if American history were substituted, 
this would mean a repetition of courses usually 



36 Ancient History 

given in the later years of the elementary school; 
the work could not be conducted on a plane suffi- 
ciently advanced to be justified. If American 
history were given the first year, it would probably 
involve the omission of the more advanced work in 
American history, and, it may be, of civil govern- 
ment, which high school pupils should have the 
chance to study in the latter part of the course.^ 
If a three years' course is given, of course the work 
might not be begun until the second year. 

The only possible solution appears to be one that 
is not on the whole regrettable. Ancient history 
must be made simpler and less abstract; more 
attention must be paid to the great men, less to the 
history of institutions; more time must be given 
to simple studies of art and habits of life; wars that 
mean nothing must be omitted, and time must be 
gained for easy, famihar talks and lessons about 
things that pupils of fourteen can understand. 
Constitutional details must give place to pictures 
and to stories of the great deeds and achievements of 
antiquity. An attempt to show just how this can 
be done would be out of place here. There is an 
undoubted demand for text-books that will aid the 
teachers in this difficult task ; and there is need of 

^ Attention may be here called to the Report of the Committee 
of Eight of the American Historical Association, dealing with 
history in the elementary schools. 



College Examination 37 

abundant and cheap illustrative material. But 
the task must rest with the teacher. Difficult as 
it is, there is reason for thinking that it will be 
mastered. We feel confidence in saying that there 
is no other field of history so rich in materials of 
human interest and which can be made more vivid 
and comprehensible; but pupils will probably not 
be fired to enthusiasm by the reforms of CHsthenes, 
the duties of archons, the campaigns of the Sam- 
nite war, or the technicahties of the Roman con- 
stitution.^ 

Such treatment as we suggest may not meet the 
requirements of entrance examinations, where col- 
leges demand a year's work of such a character as 
may be done in the later years of the high school. 
But we cannot see our way to advising a distortion 
of the school course in general because of the exi- 

1 Reference may be made again to the remark in the Report 
of the Committee of Seven as to the fact that Ceesar's Commen- 
taries, loaded down with all sorts of antiquarian information, is 
put into the hands of pupils in the second year of the high 
school. Boys of fifteen are often reading Xenophon. If a boy 
of fifteen can read Caesar in the original intelligently, can one of 
fourteen not understand a simple story of ancient life in the 
vernacular ? Beyond all question the complaint concerning the 
difficulty of the ancient field arises from a feeling that the teacher 
must have his pupils learn things that are ill adapted to this 
stage of growth. This feeling is based on tradition and possibly 
on a difficulty of selecting the significant, the picturesque, and the 
comprehensible. 



38 " Mere Memory " 

gencies of examination. If colleges will make 
such demands, many schools must shape their 
courses accordingly. We believe, however, that 
it is unreasonable for colleges to demand work of 
such a character that it can be done only in the 
later part of the course or that necessitates taking 
the v/ork over again in the fourth year. College 
entrance examinations should be arranged with 
regard to the normal sequence in the school course. 
Schools should not be compelled to keep subjects 
fresh merely for examination purposes, nor, after 
subjects have been once given well, should it be 
necessary to review them in the later years of the 
high school merely to meet college requirements. 
Such a process tends to a hopeless congestion in the 
last year and makes for cramming rather than real 
study. Some schools may be forced to give an 
ancient history course in the later years, but the 
great body of boys and girls will get what they most 
need by just such untechnical famihar study as 
we here suggest, and there is no peculiar salvation 
for their souls in knowing technical constitutional 
organization and the meaningless detail of war. 

VII. ''Mere Memory" 

The Report of the Committee of Seven did not 
emphasize the necessity of learning historical facts 



Historical Thinking 39 

and did not dwell at length on the need of accuracy 
and precision. As far as methods of teaching are 
concerned, the Report disapproved the practice of 
confining the pupil's work and interest to a text- 
book, and, on the other hand, objected to the ''topi- 
cal method" without the use of a text, because by 
such method "it is difhcult to hold the pupils to a 
definite line of work" and because ''there is danger 
of incoherence and confusion." The Report also 
included definite suggestions concerning method, 
and discussed at considerable length the value of 
historical study as well as the aims of historical 
instruction. The present Committee does not find 
that it can materially alter the recommendations 
of the Report in these particulars. 

If history teaching results only in the memorizing 
of a modicum of bare facts in the order in which 
they are given in a text, there is not much to be 
said in favor of the retention of the subject as an 
important part of the curriculum. This does not 
mean that pupils should not be accurate, painstak- 
ing, and thorough; it means that in addition to 
learning, and learning well, a reasonable amount of 
history from the text, the pupil should gain some- 
thing more: he should learn how to use books and 
how to read them; he should be led to think about 
historical facts and to see through the pages of 
the book the life with which history deals; he may 



40 " Mere Memory " 

even be brought to see the relation between evi- 
dence and historical statement in simple cases where 
material is close at hand; he should in some meas- 
ure get the historical state of mind. 

This Committee cannot be persuaded that, when 
a pupil can be induced to think, and not merely 
learn by rote in other subjects, — in physics, in 
English, and in geometry, — he cannot think in his- 
tory without being in peril of losing hold on truth 
and of gaining a love for indistinctness and uncer- 
tainty. In fact, there appear to be two essential 
results that should be the product of historical 
study: first, a firm, hard grasp of a reasonable 
quantity of facts; second, a sense of the meaning 
of historical facts and historical relations, some 
aptitude in gleaning knowledge from historical 
books, some appreciation of what history is, some 
historical imagination, some skill, though it be not 
great, in putting together the facts that one has 
learned. The Committee does not need to be told 
that pupils entering college have a marked fondness 
for vague misinformation about the essentials of 
history. But surely this cannot be attributed to 
the endeavor on the part of the teacher to arouse 
interest, to stimulate his pupils to read, to incite 
them to think and not merely repeat — unless in 
his enthusiasm he forget the danger of discussion 
without knowledge; for keen debate and even hard 



Comparison 41 

thinking, without a basis of fact for thought, un- 
questionably have their perils. The remedy and 
the control are, however, in the teacher's hands. 
It is all a matter of good judgment and good teach- 
ing. On either side there is difficulty and danger: 
on the one side, slavish adherence to a text and the 
loss of interest and training; on the other, dis- 
traction, incoherence, vague uncertainty, and pos- 
sibly ignorant enthusiasm. The teacher of history 
has an incomparably difficult task; but we believe 
that a reasonable effort should be made to get the 
best results by avoiding both of these extremes. 

In a great many ways teachers can add to the 
value of their work even when there is paucity of 
material outside the text, or when there is little 
time for collateral reading. Pupils can be taught 
by frequent exercises, both oral and written, to 
put together in their own way things they have 
learned at different times and in different parts of 
their text-books ; and, while this will develop their 
power in handling their knowledge, it will likewise 
strengthen their hold on what has been taught 
them. It is not too much to ask an intelKgent boy 
who has just finished the reign of Edward I to 
gather together and put into writing what he has 
learned about the growth of parliament from the 
time of the Conquest. It is not too much to ask 
one who has been studying the Napoleonic wars 



42 "Mere Memory" 

or the American Revolution what other wars he 
has studied about in which England and France 
were opposed. It may not be too much even to 
ask for a comparison of the way in which the French 
overthrew absolutism in the Revolution, with the 
way in which England gained her free constitution, 
if the pupil has already learned the facts and been 
given the elements of comparison. A pupil who 
has been going over American history should be 
able to say something of the activities of John C. 
Calhoun or of Henry Clay or to compare the work 
of the two statesmen, if he has already learned in 
various parts of the text the main facts which he is 
asked to put together. In this way constant re- 
view can be insured and continual practice in using 
the knowledge he has gained. Much of this can be 
done without extensive collateral reading. 

It has sometimes been said that the Report of 
the Committee of Seven emphasized the importance 
of generalized knowledge and minimized the im- 
portance of memorized facts. If we may judge 
by the information from various sources, to which 
we have already referred, teachers at large do not 
believe that the Report erred in this respect. The 
expression ''mere memory," to which special excep- 
tion was taken, does not appear in the Report, but 
in certain statements emanating from the College 
Entrance Examination Board which have appar- 



Accuracy 43 

ently been transferred, with slight verbal alteration, 
to some college catalogues. We do not feel called 
upon to discuss this subject at length ; our general 
conclusions are sufficiently presented in the preced- 
ing paragraphs; but lest there be a mistake, let 
us say expressly that the pupil should get more 
out of his study of history than the memory of a 
certain modicum of facts which, when the examina- 
tion comes, he can faithfully reproduce, but repro- 
duce only in the exact order and in the exact 
combination in which they appear in his text. 

But let us also say, with equal emphasis, that 
pupils must be taught to know clearly, strongly, 
and well the essential facts of history; they must 
be taught to know what they know and hold fast 
to what they have. Whatever else we may do, 
we are certainly not succeeding as teachers of his- 
tory if our pupils are slovenly and inaccurate, and 
if at the end of their study they know but little, 
and that vaguely. There may be some consolation 
in the thought that the uncertainty with which 
pupils often hold their inaccuracies is not at all 
confined to history. The condition is general, in 
fact, and its roots He too deep to be attributed 
to any special advice from any one committee or 
to any method of instruction. But it is clearly 
our duty to do our part in getting accuracy and 
certainty. 



44 Government 

VIII. American History and Government 

Much discussion has recently arisen concerning 
the study of government and the relations of the 
subject to American history. A committee of the 
American Political Science Association has pre- 
pared and published a report on the matter. It enters 
very fully into a consideration of the relationship 
of the two studies and combats the recommen- 
dations, or what it believes to be the recom- 
mendations, of the Committee of Seven. Certain 
portions of that report appear to us to be based on a 
misconstruction of the Report of the Committee of 
Seven and to underestimate the perfectly just and 
proper combination of history and government. 
But it is not necessary for us to discuss the subject 
at length. The purposes of the two associations 
cannot be hopelessly at variance, and a discussion in 
conflicting reports would, at the best, do no good. 
Both associations are anxious that suitable atten- 
tion should be given the subjects in which they are 
especially interested, and each is ready, we are sure, 
to acknowledge its interest in the special field of the 
other; for government and poHtical order cannot 
be disassociated from history; and the historian 
that has no appreciation of the problems of modern 
government and of modern poKtics may lose his 
history in scholasticism or antiquarianism. 



Previous Recommendations 45 

When the Committee of Seven reported, there 
was no national association of political scientists; 
the Historical Association included then, as indeed 
it does now, many teachers of government and 
politics ; at least four members of the Committee 
of Seven had for years taught both government 
and history. It was not therefore beyond the 
province of that Committee to make suggestions 
about teaching government, and especially to speak 
of the connection between government and history. 
The situation is now considerably changed; the 
present Committee can with no show of right lay 
down definite regulations or expHcit recommenda- 
tions about the teaching of government or its place 
in the curriculum.^ The most we can do is to 
present our views of the relations of government to 
history and make proposals for adjustment of time 
and proportional emphasis. 

The statements of the Report of the Committee of 
Seven, which are given in the note below,^ appear 

1 It may be said, however, that of the Committee making the 
present Report, only one is not a member of the American Polit- 
ical Science Association. Mr. Mann was also a member of that 
Association. 

2 " Much time will be saved and better results obtained if his- 
tory and civil government be studied in large measure together, 
as one subject rather than as two distinct subjects. We are sure 
that, in the light of what has been said in the earlier portions 
of this Report about the desirability of school pupils knowing 



46 



Government 



to us unexceptionable, if they are fairly construed 
and applied. The recommendations were far 
from advising that civil government should not be 

their political surroundings and duties, no one will suppose that 
in what we here recommend we underestimate the value of 
civil government or wish to lessen the effectiveness of the study. 
What we desire to emphasize is the fact that the two subjects are 
in some respects one, and that there is a distinct loss of energy in 
studying a small book on American history and afterward a small 
book on civil government, or vice versa, when by combining the 
two a substantial course may be given." 

" In any complete and thorough secondary course in these 
subjects, there must be, probably, a separate study of civil govern- 
ment, in which may be discussed such topics as municipal govern- 
ment, state institutions, the nature and origin of civil society, 
some fundamental notions of law and justice, and like matters ; 
and it may even be necessary, if the teacher desires to give a 
complete course and can command the time, to supplement work 
in American history with a formal study of the Constitution and 
the workings of the national government. But we repeat that 
a great deal of what is commonly called civil government can 
best be studied as a part of history. To know the present form 
of our institutions well, one should see whence they came and 
how they developed ; but to show origins, developments, changes, 
is the task of history, and in the proper study of history one sees 
just these movements and knows their results." 

" It would of course be foolish to say that the secondary pupil 
can trace the steps in the development of all our institutions, 
laws, political theories, and practices; but some of them he can 
trace, and he should be enabled to do so in his course in Ameri- 
can history. How it came about that we have a federal system 
of government rather than a centralized state; what were the 
colonial beginnings of our systems of local government; how the 
Union itself grew into being; why the Constitution provided 
against general warrants; why the first ten amendments were 



Relations 47 

given adequate attention or that government be 
distinctly subordinated to history, but rather that, 
especially when the time at command was brief^ 

adopted ; why the American people objected to bills of attainder 
and declared against them in their fundamental law, — these, 
and a score of other questions, naturally arise in the study of 
history, and an answer to them gives meaning to our Constitu- 
tion. Aloreover, the most fundamental ideas in the political 
structure of the United States may best be seen in a study of the 
problems of history. The nature of the Constitution as an in- 
strument of government, the relation of the central authority to 
the states, the theory of state sovereignty or that of national 
unity, the rise of parties and the growth of party machinery, — 
these subjects are best understood when seen in their historical 
•settings." 

" But in addition to this, many, if not all, of the provisions of 
the Constitution may be seen in the study of history, not as mere 
descriptions written on a piece of parchment, but as they are 
embodied in working institutions. The best way to understand 
mstitutions is to see them in action ; the best way to understand 
forms is to see them used. By studying civil government in 
connection with history, the pupil studies the concrete and the 
actual. The process of impeachment, the appointing power 
of the president, the make-up of the cabinet, the power of the 
speaker, the organization of the territories, the adoption and 
purpose of the amendments, the methods of annexing territory, the 
distribution of the powers of government and their working re- 
lations, indeed all the important parts of the Constitution that 
have been translated into existing, acting institutions, may be 
studied as they have acted. If one does not pay attention to 
such subjects as these in the study of history, what is left but 
wars and rumors of wars, partisan contentions, and meaningless 
details ? " 

" We do not advise that text-books on civil government be dis- 
carded, even when there is no opportunity to give a separate 



48 Government 

every available opportunity be used to take advan- 
tage of the interrelation and interdependence of 
the two subjects. But if the Report of the Com- 
mittee of Seven is in this respect at all ambiguous, 
we desire to say clearly that we do not think that 
the two subjects, despite their interdependence, 
should be so taught as to crowd out government or 
give insufhcient time for its proper study. More 
and more as the days go by it becomes plain that 
the schools have the clear duty of giving full instruc- 
tion on the essentials of American government and 
practical politics. We have no desire to under- 
estimate this need and this duty. 

We still think, however, that much that is com- 
monly called government as distinguished from 
history can be taught and should be taught as part 
of the history course. To separate the workings 
of poHtical institutions through the decades of the 
last century from the institutions we have to-day, 

course in the subject. On the contrary, such a book should always 
be ready for use, in order that the teacher may properly illus- 
trate the past by reference to the present. If the pupils can 
make use of good books on the Constitution and laws, so much 
the better. What we desire to recommend is simply this, that 
in any school where there is no time for sound, substantial courses 
in both civil government and history, the history be taught in 
such a way that the pupil will gain a knowledge of the essentials 
of the political system which is the product of that history ; and 
that, where there is time for separate courses, they be taught, not 
as isolated, but as interrelated and interdependent subjects." 



Separate Treatment 49 

or to have no eye for the fact that the contests of 
the past produced what we have to-day, would be 
entirely without justification. Such separation 
and wilful blindness would be worse than profitless. 
A proper and wise correlation, a suitable and just 
treating of American history, must have the result 
of giving clear pictures of actual institutions of 
government and clear ideas of their workings. 
Much of our national constitutional system can 
thus be effectively presented. 

It is clear, however, that not by the study of 
American history alone can the pupil get such a 
knowledge of government as he ought to have. It 
is especially difficult to teach the state constitutional 
system or local government in connection with the 
course in American history, and it is almost impos- 
sible to bring out adequately the all-important 
facts of party organization and the workings of 
party machinery. Such subjects seem to require 
distinct and separate treatment, and their signifi- 
cance in the daily Hfe of the pupil is too great to 
justify a hurried or vague treatment. And yet it 
must be pointed out that the proper presentation of 
governmental facts in the history course, those 
facts of a general character that readily and natu- 
rally come into view, does not detract from the im- 
portance of government; such presentation only 
gives more time for the proper study of the poHtical 



50 Government 

situation, the problems of the day, the intricacies 
of party methods, the make-up of local govern- 
ment, and such other things as demand particular 
and separate study. Moreover, the field is so large, 
so immediate, and so important that every avail- 
able advantage must be taken of fair and just oppor- 
tunity to treat government and history as related 
and mutually helpful subjects of study. 

Here, as in so many cases, the real need is for more 
time. Probably no one doubts that where there is 
ample time at disposal separate courses in history 
and government should be established. And no 
one can fairly doubt that, even then, they should 
be so taught as to take advantage of relationships 
and interdependence. But the problem becomes 
acute when time is brief, and condensation is imper- 
ative. How much time should be given to the 
separate study in government ? How much govern- 
ment must be taught, and taught once for all, in 
connection with history? How shall the time be 
justly distributed between the two ? Now perhaps 
we do quite wrong in suggesting palliatives, in pro- 
posing plans that may soothe school administra- 
tors and result in the inadequate or improper study 
of American history and government. The simple 
truth is that these subjects should be given the time 
they need in the school curriculum, and if shearing 
and clipping must be done somewhere, let the opera- 



Colonial History 51 

tion be applied to subjects that are not the best 
and most immediate subjects for preparing boys and 
girls for citizenship. 

We are, however, confronted by a condition and 
not a theory — only the exceptional school will 
give more than a single year to American history 
and government late in the course. The question 
of distribution and arrangement must therefore 
receive some sort of an answer. Let us, however, 
before suggesting the answer, propose an alleviation 
of the pressure on the last year : some relief may 
be obtained by dealing with colonial history in 
connection with English and modern European 
history. If this is done, the course in American his- 
tory can be begun with a rapid survey of colonial 
history, with a consideration of the most important 
colonial achievements, and especially with a picture 
of conditions and institutions in the middle of the 
eighteenth century. This proposal is discussed 
briefly in later portions of the report. The English 
background of American history is of great value 
to the student of American history; moreover, 
if modern history be taught, as suggested in suc- 
ceeding pages of this report, the pupil will have 
as a background for his study of America some 
knowledge of European government and institu- 
tions, and will have at least some idea of the colonial 
expansion of Europe. 



52 Government 

The distribution of time between government and 
history in the fourth year should, we beHeve, be 
in some such ratio as this — two-fifths of the time 
may be given to separate work in government 
and three-fifths to the course in history. This 
arrangement will not appear to all teachers as ideal ; 
some teachers will desire more time for history, 
others more time for government. But on the 
whole the distribution appears to be the best that 
can be proposed, and we should be the last to assert 
that no teacher should modify any adjustment 
or arrangement to suit his own needs and incKna- 
tions, if they are based on an intelligent regard for 
the subject and his pupils. Many teachers will 
prefer to give the civil government separately after 
the history work is concluded. But while this plan 
may have its advantages in some respects, the con- 
tinuous study of government throughout the year 
side by side with history has also advantages that 
merit consideration. Where the study of govern- 
ment extends through the whole year, there are 
many opportunities for concrete illustrations and 
even learning by observation, which are not allowed 
in a shorter time: elections are held; municipal 
problems arise and are discussed in the newspapers ; 
important appointments to office are announced; 
the usual presidential message appears. These 
advantages will induce many teachers to prefer the 



Present Conditions 53 

system of carrying government through the year 
side by side with history. 

IX. More Time for Modern History 

In the decade and more that has passed since the 
Committee of Seven reported, there has been a 
growing interest in the study of modern history. 
Many teachers have come to feel strongly that a 
study of the past should distinctly help in under- 
standing the present. They believe that for a 
knowledge of present social and political conditions 
there is need of a reasonable famiharity with the 
great changes of the past century, and that history 
courses should be so arranged as to allow ample 
opportunity for the study of the development and 
progress of modern Europe. As the course is now 
arranged and as it is not uncommonly taught, quite 
as much attention is given to the Middle Ages as 
to modern times ; in fact, probably many teachers 
would confess that their pupils know more of the 
crusades than of the colonial expansion of Europe, 
and that Charlemagne and Peter the Hermit are 
more famihar figures than is Napoleon, or Cavour, 
or Bismarck. Such a condition can scarcely be 
justified. Interesting and important as are the 
great statesmen and soldiers of mediaeval times, 
they are not more important to us than the men of 



54 Modern History 

more recent centuries. Why should we know of 
Frederic Barbarossa or Innocent III and be ignorant 
of their great successors ? Surely Pitt and Palmer- 
ston and Gladstone are more significant to us than 
are Athelstane or Thomas Becket. From the study 
of history, it is true, much more is to be gained than 
a modicum of information about the immediate 
background of European politics; the value of 
history is not to be measured merely by its con- 
tribution to knowledge of the present. But on 
the other hand there appears no vahd reason for 
avoiding a more intensive study of more recent 
centuries or for spending so much time on the 
earlier ages that the pupils get little or nothing of 
the social changes and political movements which 
have in modern times transformed the face of Eu- 
rope. The desire of teachers to emphasize modern 
history, therefore, strongly appeals to the members 
of this Committee. Although we appreciate fully 
the cultural value of all historical study and 
although we should deplore the abandonment of 
the older fields, we are quite in accord with those 
who wish to see sufficient time given for the dehb- 
erate study of the later period. 

If dissatisfaction with the curriculum marked 
out by the Committee of Seven were quite general 
or if some distinct plan for rearrangement were 
commonly advocated by experienced teachers, 



Alternatives 55 

it would not be so difficult to determine what 
changes should be made. But even among those 
desiring this increased emphasis on modern times, 
there appears to be no general agreement. Many 
teachers are not advocating a breaking up of the 
old schedule and the establishment of a new, dis- 
tinct course; they are simply in sympathy with 
the movement for more modern history. It appears 
to us likely that many schools will soon rearrange 
their courses; and even where no fundamental 
change is made, there will not infrequently be a 
shifting of emphasis in order that modern history 
may receive fuller treatment. 

In light of all these conditions we do not advo- 
cate an immediate change in every school, the uni- 
versal abandonment of the plan of the Committee 
of Seven, and the immediate substitution of a new 
curriculum. We have tried to make it clear that 
an emphasis on modern times is, in our opinion, 
desirable, and we beheve a rearrangement of the 
curriculum is much to be desired. But something 
must be left to the determination of the teacher; 
something must be left to circumstances and condi- 
tions ; and it seems to us we should not be justified 
in condemning the curriculum proposed by the 
Committee of Seven as so totally wrong in principle 
that schools should in all cases immediately abandon 
it for a curriculum that appeals to us as better in 



56 Modern History 

some particulars. Any radical rearrangement is 
a serious matter when the schools of the whole 
country are concerned, and it should be entered 
upon with a full understanding of what the change 
involves. We content ourselves, therefore, first, 
with advising a change in emphasis when the aban- 
donment of the plan marked out by the Committee 
of Seven does not seem feasible; and second, by 
the proposal of a course which we believe to be on 
the whole better than the old, and which we think 
will suit the needs of schools ready to take up seri- 
ously the study of modern history. 

For the schools adhering to the blocks or periods 
now commonly given there is only one way to get 
more time for modern history. That way is to 
abridge the mediaeval period in general European 
history and in EngKsh history ; it is the old remedy 
of condensation and omission. The early centuries 
must be treated as introductory or preparatory 
only; those things must be selected that are con- 
spicuous and of deep significance ; those things 
must be omitted that are not of fundamental impor- 
tance and that do not materially aid in the appre- 
ciation of later times. Of course this is easier in 
the saying than in the doing. But even where text- 
books do not make such elimination and cursory 
treatment easy, the task is by no means an impos- 
sible one. The fuller attention to the later centuries 



A New Course 57 

of England and the Continent is quite within the 
range of possibihty for the well-prepared teacher, 
especially if the school is provided with illustrative 
material and suitable reference books. 

This mere shifting of emphasis will not satisfy 
those who are intent upon the careful and fairly 
elaborate study of modern times. They will point 
out the difficulty of carrying out the plan of abridg- 
ment and condensation in the earher period ; they 
will argue that the modern development of England 
and the Continent needs to be studied in a single 
course and that the second year, in which general 
European history is commonly given, should be 
devoted to the study of events leading up to modern 
history. To get substantial and satisfying results 
from the study of modern history requires, it will 
be said, at least a year for concentrated connected 
study. Such assertions are certainly not without 
force; they constitute a strong argument for the 
establishment of a separate course. 

X. A New Schedule of Courses 

The estabhshment of a separate course in modern 
history involves, in our judgment, placing English 
history in the second year. Perhaps it might more 
properly be said that the second year should be 
devoted to a study of English history together with 



58 A New Schedule 

the general history of Europe. The main line of 
English growth should be followed, and events and 
conditions on the Continent of supreme importance 
for the understanding of general European develop- 
ment should be introduced in connection with the 
history of England. The course will naturally 
begin with the break-up of the Roman Empire 
and give a rapid survey of conditions in England 
and on the Continent in the later portion of the 
period covered by the course in ancient history. 
Throughout the study of the Middle Ages the most 
significant movements in Europe can be introduced 
and made to stand out with distinctness. The 
estabhshment and growth of the papal power, 
the great institutions of the church, the foundation 
of the religious orders, the contest between papal 
and temporal authority, can not only be properly 
studied as a part of' general European liistory but 
can be seen also as part of the history of England. 
The same can be said of feudalism, which cannot 
be understood as it existed in England without some 
examination of the feudal system on the Continent. 
The growth of the kingly authority and the estab- 
lishment of the national state can be seen both in 
England and in continental Europe. So also of the 
Crusades and the spread of the Northmen — the 
pupil will get totally wrong conceptions if he does 
not see these facts as part of European history. 



England and the Continent 59 

Social conditions of mediaeval times and the ex- 
tent and character of mediaeval commerce can also 
be studied in connection with the history of Eng- 
land. The rise of the towns and the growth of 
parliament give opportunity for valuable com- 
parisons and the imparting of useful knowledge of 
conditions on both sides of the Channel. The 
truth is that such topics as these, often treated in 
the course of English history as of purely insular 
importance, can be understood properly only when 
seen in the setting of general European history. 
The Renaissance and the revival of learning must, 
under any circumstances, be seen first, not in back- 
ward England, but in the life of the more advanced 
nations of the Continent. The study of WycHf 
and the pre-Reformation conditions in England give 
opportunity for the study of John Huss and the 
growing discontent in continental Europe, while 
the Reformation itself necessitates, under any cir- 
cumstances, the introduction of Luther before one 
enters upon the separation of the EngHsh Church 
from Rome. 

The same is true of the age of discovery. It 
cannot be treated as if England first entered the 
race and was a leader in achievement. Henry the 
Navigator was a grandson of John of Gaunt, yet 
it was Portugal, not England, that pointed the 
way to the Indies. John Cabot himself was a 



6o A New Schedule 

Venetian, and for long years after him the Italian, 
Spanish, and Portuguese seamen were the pioneers 
in maritime adventure. But even the great dis- 
coveries, the finding of the new heaven and the 
new earth, are of such supreme importance in 
EngHsh history that no excuse need be made for 
the introduction of Prince Henry, Columbus, and 
the bold Portuguese sailor who rounded the cape 
England now holds, on his voyage to the Indies, 
now ruled as an EngHsh possession. 

Some subjects of prime significance, it is true, 
cannot be studied merely when incidents or condi- 
tions in English history call for their presentation. 
Nor, indeed, is such a treatment in immediate 
connection with England always desirable. The 
course of English history offers a convenient and 
suitable line to be followed ; to follow it will probably 
help in giving coherence, strength, and simplicity 
to the work; and as English history is in some 
ways our history, and as our own institutions 
were making in the kingdoms of Alfred, William 
the Conqueror, and Edward I, we may well hesitate 
to cast aside the advantage of seeing the growth 
of the English state and the establishment of Eng- 
lish liberties. But, withal, many of the great 
movements, as we have already said, were not 
peculiarly English; and there is a real advantage 
in seeing the general European character of the 



England and the Continent 6i 

most significant social and political development. 
If occasionally the teacher or text- writer must 
leave the course of English history to describe 
events that, comparatively speaking, remotely 
influenced the growth of England, such digressions 
need not cause confusion or perplexity. The 
early rise and progress of the Mohammedan power, 
for instance, cannot be treated as in any sense 
of especial importance to England, though the 
participation of Richard Coeur de Lion in the 
third crusade gives opportunity for saying some- 
thing of Mohammedanism and for studying the 
crusading movement. The spread of the Ottoman 
Turk and the influence of his conquests cannot be 
introduced as merely incidental matter, where 
some event in the history of England seems to 
furnish the excuse. But if time can be taken for 
suitable treatment of such matters, and even if 
they are brought in with little or no pretence of 
finding their connection with English history, the 
loss in interest and continuity need not be serious, 
if there be loss at all. 

If only the most superficial treatment were to 
be given to the events on the Continent from the 
Council of Trent to the accession of Louis XIV, 
the result would not be disastrous. Probably 
something should be known of the wars of religion 
in France, and some impression should be gained 



62 A New Schedule 

of the extent and character of the Thirty Years' 
War, but the average pupil surely need not be bur- 
dened with anything like detail. Of course Eng- 
Hsh history cannot omit suitable reference to the 
rise of the Dutch Republic, the expansion and de- 
cHne of Spain, and the growth of French power 
and influence in Europe. But the age of Eliza- 
beth and the course of the EngHsh struggle for 
constitutional liberty in the seventeenth century 
are too important to be obscured by undue atten- 
tion to Continental history. A certain amount of 
attention is inevitable and may illuminate rather 
than obscure; but particular effort must be made 
to avoid confusion. With the accession of Louis 
XIV, Continental history may be left to the study 
of the third year, with only such reference to 
France and other lands of Europe as the study of 
English history requires. The main outline of 
Enghsh progress can be followed as far as the 
middle of the eighteenth century or the accession 
of George III. 

The study of England's growth from the acces- 
sion of Elizabeth to George III necessitates some 
reference to Enghsh adventure and English col- 
onization. The estabhshment and growth of the 
American colonies must be noted and only the press- 
ure of time need prevent such a treatment of the 
colonies as to make an extended treatment in the 



Modern History 63 

fourth year unnecessary. The course in American 
history must inevitably begin with a picture of 
colonial conditions, include a distinct statement 
of the nature of colonial development, point out 
those tendencies and qualities in colonial life that 
account for independence, and make clear the 
achievements of the colonies that are of real sig- 
nificance in our national history. But if the course 
in English history has included an examination 
of the EngHsh colonial system and a study, even 
though a hurried one, of colonial growth, it will 
be possible to pass over quickly or to omit altogether 
. many things now dwelt on in the first two or three 
months of work in American history. 

To outline the course in modern history which 
we recommend for the third year would be super- 
fluous. Teachers and text-writers will be sure to 
differ concerning details of arrangement and 
emphasis. We desire therefore only to say that 
in all likelihood it will be necessary to reach back 
into mediaeval history at least occasionally, in 
order, if for no other reason, to get hold again 
of institutions, customs, and practices which the 
modern world was altering or casting aside. The 
course will, we presume, begin with Louis XIV 
and be carried down to the present, devoting 
suitable attention to the rise of the modern states, 
European expansion, the development of free in- 



64 A New Schedule 

stitutions, economic progress, and social change. 
At least from 1760 the course will naturally include 
not only the history of the Continent but of England 
as well. Some attention can be paid to American 
colonial history, and thus help to relieve the press- 
ure on the last year of study. 

The four blocks of study under this arrange- 
ment would then be as follows : — 

A. Ancient History to 800 a.d. or thereabouts, 
the events of the last five hundred years to be passed 
over rapidly in some such manner as we have sug- 
gested above (pp. 29-35). 

B. English History, beginning with a brief 
statement of England's connection with the ancient 
world. The work should trace the main line of 
English development to about 1760, include as 
far as is possible or convenient the chief facts of 
general European history, especially before the 
seventeenth century, and give something of the 
colonial history of America. 

C. Modern European History, including such 
introductory matter concerning later mediaeval 
institutions and the beginnings of the modern age as 
seems wise or desirable, and giving a suitable treat- 
ment of EngHsh history from 1760. 

D. American History and Government, arranged 
on such a basis that some time may be secured for 
the separate study of government. We propose, 



Required History 65 

as explained in the earlier portions of this report, 
a possible division of the year which would allow 
two-fifths of the time for such separate and dis- 
tinct treatment. 

XL Shall Three Years be Required in the 
High Schools ? 

The Committee of Seven, although recommending 
a four years' course and pointing out the advantages 
of continuous study, did not propose that all 
students be directly required to take a long series 
of courses in history. The subject has been much 
discussed by the present Committee; and we are 
strongly of the opinion that the time has come 
when many schools can introduce the require- 
ment of three years of history from every pupil. 
We recognize the difficulty of giving three years to 
history in courses that are already filled to over- 
flowing with ancient and modern languages and 
with mathematics and science. And yet history i 
and government are so valuable, their effects, \ 
if^ properly taught, should aid so distinctly and ) 
directly in giving pupils an appreciation of the pres- / 
ent and a sense of social Hfe and social respon-/ 
sibility, that we cannot beheve they should b^ 
sacrificed to the pursuit of other subjects. If lan- 
guage and literature are cultural, in the narrow 



66 Three Years 

sense and in the wider sense also, history too is a 
cultural; it helps to widen the horizon, to deepen 
the sympathies, and to develop the judgment. If 
mathematics and science require exactness and 
precision of statement and clear thinking, so also 
does history, at least in considerable measure, if 
it be taught with intelligence and care. It is true 
that conclusions in history do not always rest on 
demonstration, but often on conflicting evidence, 
and frequently it is not easy, or even possible, to 
speak with the assurance and precision one may 
use in science; but the training in judgment, in 
candor, and in scientific fairness is not to be ignored ; 
in daily life one must often rest his conclusions on 
the same kind of testimony that one is called upon 
to consider in history. To require that, of the six- 
teen or seventeen units offered in the ordinary 
course, three should be taken in history does not 
seem to be an exorbitant requirement. 

Such a suggestion as this, coming from this Com- 
mittee, may appear to be a desire for more history 
as a college entrance requirement, or as a result of 
a desire to get more history in the schools, that 
college teachers may have a broader foundation to 
build upon. But this is not the case. We have 
not in this report considered the needs of the 
colleges. In fact, college teachers of history are 
not supremely anxious, for any particular purpose 



Recommendation 67 

of their own, about the amount of history studied 
in the schools. The study of history in the schools 
is more important for those that do not go to 
college than for those that do. The thing that we 
deplore is that young men and women should 
leave the schools and encounter the work and 
pleasure of mature years without a knowledge of 
history, for history will peculiarly help to fit them 
for entering upon their duties in society and give 
them the basis for satisfaction in the intellectual 
Hfe. 

XII. Trade Schools 

The recent movements in the line of commercial, 
technical, and industrial education have forced on 
the attention of the Committee the necessity of 
making some statement concerning historical 
courses in schools where such education is to be 
given. In the overwhelming enthusiasm of the 
moment, it is to be feared that over-ardent advo- 
cates may venture to exclude historical instruction 
altogether or recommend courses in which only 
the development of shipping, the progress of in- 
vention, and the processes of manufacture are 
studied to the exclusion of the poHtical and social 
background which is really necessary for the com- 
plete understanding of any commercial, scientific, 
or industrial movement. 



68 Trade Schools 

In such schools the Committee is of the opinion 
that a course in modern history should be required, 
and that it should be followed by a course in United 
States history and government. The demand that 
our high schools should prepare for intelligent citi- 
zenship certainly makes necessary the requirement 
of these two courses in all of them. Pupils may or 
may not become artisans or captains of industry, 
but they will all be citizens and need the background 
of knowledge and of interest that comes, or should 
come, from the intelligent study of the social and 
political life of the past and the political organiza- 
tion of the present. If two years of history be 
given in the curriculimi, this could scarcely be 
looked on as an excess of liberalizing study; for it 
is not unlikely that history will be the only, or 
ahnost the only, non- technical, non-occupational 
study offered. 

There is a reasonable desire that such schools 
should offer courses in economics and in commercial 
geography. Both of these studies need to be corre- 
lated with history and can be given with best effect 
to pupils that are studying or have studied history. 
No plan or method of correlation, however, should, 
in our judgment, result in the essential diminution 
of the time we have named as an irreducible mini- 
mum to be devoted substantially and in fact to 
history and government. It will probably be 



The Necessary Minimum 69 

feasible to introduce into the history course not a 
little industrial history. But, whatever may be 
done, this appears certain — the pupils from the 
trade or semi-professional schools should not be 
turned out upon the world ignorant of the main 
currents of modern history, ignorant of the history 
of their own country and the ideals it has tried to 
make its own, and ignorant of the government 
under which they live and on which they must 
have their share of influence. 

Andrew C. McLaughlin, 
Professor of History, University of Chicago, 

Chairman. 
Charles H. Haskins, 
Professor of History, Harvard University. 
James Harvey Robinson, 
Professor of History, Columbia University. 
James Sullivan, 
Principal of the Boys' High School, Brooklyn. 



INDEX 



Age of discovery, studied with 
English history, 59, 60. 

American Historical Association, 
5 ; also teachers of government 
and politics, 45. 

American history, government, 9, 
10, II, 44, 46; separate treat- 
ment, 49, 50 ; an English back- 
ground, 51 ; begin with colonial 
times, 63; for fourth year, 64. 
See also Civil Government. 

American Pohtical Science Asso- 
ciation, report, 44; Committee 
of Five members of, 45. 

Ancient History, 7 ; in three years' 
course, 23 ; single course, 24 ; 
emphasis on Hellenistic period, 
27 ; limits, 29, ss ', transitional 
period of, 31 ; subjects treated, 
2,5', examination questions, 34; 
immaturity of students, 35; 
treatment, 27, 36; in first year, 
3S, 64. 

Association of History Teachers of 
Middle States and Maryland, 5. 

Circulars of inquiry, 5 ; replies, 6- 
10; replies inconclusive, 12; con- 
sidered, 6-13. 

Civil Government, relation to 
United States history, 9; com- 
bined with, or separate, 10, 11; 
with history, 44-53 ; not crowded 
out, 48 ; separate treatment, 49- 



52; mutually helpful, 50; dis- 
tribution of time, 50-52. 

College Entrance Examination 
Board, questions, 31; "mere 
memory," 42. 

College entrance examinations, 
38. 

Colonial history, in connection 
with English, 51; brief treat- 
ment, 63. 

Committee of Eight, 36. 

Committee of Five, personnel of, 
I ; relation to Committee of 
Seven, i ; how appointed, 4. 

Committee of Seven, relation to 
Committee of Five, i ; rec- 
ommendations, 4; teachers of 
government, 45. 

Committee of Seven Report, in- 
terpretation of, 2 ; criticism of, 6 ; 
influence of, 7; short course in 
general history, 18; what to 
teach, 37 ; single course for Greek 
and Roman history, 24; Orien- 
tal history, 26; unifying ancient 
history, 26 ; recommendations 
not altered, 39; changes con- 
sidered, 55 ; abandonment not 
advised, 55 ; consideration of by, 
Committee of American Pohtical 
Science Association, 44. 

Comparison and judgment, 41, 42. 

Courses of study, similarity a con- 
venience, 3; radical alteration 



71 



72 



Index 



unnecessary, 4, 55; four years' 
work possible, 6; influence of 
Report of Committee of Seven, 7 ; 
in government and history, 10, 
1 1 ; four-year and three-year, 
16-20; in general history, 18; 
Greek and Roman, 24; Oriental 
history, 26; unifying ancient 
history, 26 ; no immediate change 
in, 55 ; rearrangement desirable, 
55; new schedule, 57-64; for 
trade schools, 67. 

English history, in second year, 57, 
64; in connection with conti- 
nental, 59. 

Equipment for teaching history, 
13, 15- 

European history, 24; what to 
teach with English history, 60, 61. 

Examinations, 31, 38. 

Four years' course, 6, 16, 18. 

General history, single year course 
abandoned, 7 ; four years' course, 
16, 17. 

Historical thinking, 39. 
History teachers of California, 5. 

Mediaeval and modern history, 9, 

53-59- 
Mediaeval history, rapid survey, 

24, 56; studied with English 

history, 55-61. 
Memorizing history, 12. 
"Mere memory," 38, 40, 42. 
Methods, affected by report of 

Committee of Seven, 3, 4; pre- 



vailing, 15; recommended, 14- 
15, 23, 41, 42. 
Modern history, emphasized, 9, 
54 ; colonial history taught with, 
51; more time for, 53-55; for 
third year, 63, 64. 

New England History Teachers' 
Association, 5 ; recommendations, 
12. 

North Central History Teachers' 
Association, 5. 

Oral instruction, 23. 

Oriental history, brief survey ad- 
vised, 25; course should con- 
tain, 26. 

Purposes of historical study, 22, 
39- 

Required history, 65-66. 

Schedule of Courses, 57-65. 

Teacher, material for, 13; quali- 
fications of, 14; avoiding ex- 
tremes, 41 ; must choose signifi- 
cant subjects, 18-22, 28, 60, 61. 

Text-books, 21, 26. 

Three years' course, 16, 20-23, 65. 

Time, divided between history and 
government, 50-52 ; proportion 
in fourth year, 52; more for 
modern history, 53, 56. 

Trade schools, 67. 

United States history, fee American 
history. 



' I ^HE following pages contain ad- 
vertisements of a few of the 
Macmillan books on kindred subjects 



** Source Books" in American History 



Select Charters and Other Documents Illustrative of 
American History — 160G-1775 

Edited with Notes by William MacDonald, Professor of History 
in Brown University. Cloth. i2mo. ix + 401 pages. $2,00 net. 

Select Statutes and Other Documents Illustrative of 
the History of the United States — 1861-1898 

Edited with Notes by William MacDonald. Qoth. i2mo. x + 
442 pages. ^2.00 net 

Select Documents Illustrative of the History of the 
United States — 177&-1861 

Edited with Notes by William MacDonald. Cloth. i2mo. xiii + 
465 pages. ^2.25 net. 

Documentary Source Book of American History — 
1606-1898 

Edited with Notes by William MacDonald. Cloth. i2mo. xii + 
616 pages. ^1.75 net. 

American History Told by Contemporaries 

By Albert Bushnell Hart, Professor of History in Harvard Uni- 
versity. In four volumes. Cloth. i2mo. Each, ^2.00 net. 

Volume I — Era of Colonization, 1492-1689. xviii + 606 pages. 
Volume II — Building of the Republic, 1689-1783. xxi + 653 pages. 
Volume III — National Expansion, 1783-1845. xx + 668 pages. 
Volume IV — Welding of the Nation, 1845-1900. xxi+ 732 pages. 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York 
BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS SAN FRANCISCO 



High School Texts in History 



A History of the Orient, Greece, and Rome 

By George Willis Botsford, Ph.D., Professor of Ancient History 
in Columbia University. Cloth. i2mo. Illustrated. Ixv + 779 
pages. ^1.80 net. 

A History of the Orient and Greece 

By George Willis Botsford. Cloth. i2mo. Illustrated. Ixv + 
383 pages. ^1.20 net. 

A History of Greece 

By George Willis Botsford. Cloth. i2mo. Illustrated, xiii + 
381 pages, ^i.io net. 

A History of Rome 

By George Willis Botsford. Cloth. i2mo. Illustrated. xiv + 
396 pages, ^i.io net. 

The Story of Rome as the Greeks and Romans Tell It 

By George Willis Botsford. Cloth. i2mo. Illustrated. x + 
328 pages. 90 cents net. 

A History of the Ancient World 

By George Willis Botsford. In preparation. 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York 
BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS SAN FRANCISCO 



High School Texts in History 



Medieval and Modern History 

By George Burton Adams, Professor of History in Yale University. 
Cloth. l2mo. Illustrated, xxviii + 474 pages, ^i.io net. 

European History 

By George Burton Adams. Half leather. 12010. Illustrated, 
xxviii + 577 pages. $1.40 net. 

The Growth of the French Nation 

By George Burton Adams. Cloth. i2mo. Illustrated, ix + 
350 pages. ^1.25 net. 

A History of England 

By Katharine Coman, Ph.B., Professor of Economics in Wellesley 
College, and Elizabeth Kimball Kendall, M.A., Professor of 
History in Wellesley College. Cloth. i2mo. Illustrated, xvi + 
501 pages. ^1.25 net. 

Source-Book of English History 

Edited by Elizabeth Kimball Kendall, M.A., Professor of His- 
tory in Wellesley College. Cloth. i2mo. xxii + 483 pages. 
80 cents net. 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York 
BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS SAN FRANCISCO 



American History for High Schools 



A Students* History of the United States 

By Edward Channing, Professor of History in Harvard University. 
Cloth, l2mo. Illustrated, xliii + 606 pages. $1.^0 nei. 

American History 

By RoscoE Lewis Ashley, author of «'The American Federal 
State," "American Government," etc. Cloth. i2mo. Illus- 
trated. XXXV + 557 + xlvii pages. ^1.40 net. 

Side Lights on American History' 

By Henry W. Elson, A.M., Lecturer of the American Society for 
the Extension of University Teaching, author of " Historical 
Biographies for Children," " What to Read," etc. In two vol- 
umes. Cloth. i2mo. Each, 75 cents net. 

Volume I — Before the Civil War. xvi + 398 pages. 
Volume II — The Civil War and Our Times, x + 410 pages. 

Source Book of American History 

For Schools and Readers 

Edited by Albert Bushnell Hart, Professor of History in Har- 
vard University. Cloth. i2mo. xlvi + 408 pages. 60 cents «<?/. 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York 
BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS SAN FRANCISCO 



ID 



One copy del. to Cat. 


Div. 


?^Ah l^ isni 




* 





